North Vancouver singer-songwriter singing the blues over judge's ruling

Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun columnist03.27.2014

Vancouver crooner Babe Coal is still singing the blues, even after winning a partial court battle over a local noise bylaw.Megan Regehr
/ Facebook

Vancouver singer songwriter Babe Coal, a.k.a. Megan Regehr, has beaten a pile of noise control bylaw tickets from the City of North Vancouver because the B.C. Supreme Court says her soft crooning doesn’t fit the definition of “noise.” Photo from Facebook.

The Vancouver singer songwriter, a.k.a. Megan Regehr, has beaten a sheaf of noise control bylaw tickets from the City of North Vancouver because the B.C. Supreme Court says her soft crooning, even amplified, doesn’t fit the definition of “noise.”

Forget the review, the win only left Regehr “saddened.”

After being given six tickets in the summer of 2012 for performing in the civic plaza between Chesterfield and Lonsdale avenues, Regehr launched a constitutional challenge.

Representing herself, she claimed the city was violating her right to freedom of expression and the enforcement procedures violated her right to a fair hearing.

Though B.C. Judge Heather Holmes said the constitutional challenges were not without weight, unfortunately, she ignored them.

“There can be no question that Ms. Regehr’s singing created ‘sound,’” Justice Holmes said in her ruling released Thursday.

“The issue is whether the ‘sound’ Ms. Regehr made was also ‘noise.’”

She concluded it wasn’t.

“I did not win anything I asked for, nothing of significance, and I got no justice,” Regehr said in a statement posted on her website.

“With only the tickets being decided on, I feel no justice for myself and fellow Canadians in this matter and I fear the direction of our legal system and the betterment of our country.”

In a decision that reads like a paper on hermeneutics — the science of interpretation — the justice dissected the possible meanings of “noise.”

Under the bylaw, Judge Holmes said, the non-exhaustive definition had three parts — sounds that disturb or tend to disturb the peace and enjoyment of the neighbourhood, sounds made at a level exceeding a permitted limit and sounds listed in a schedule B. The list specifically prohibits squealing tires, loud exhaust pipes, annoying animals as well as: “Shouting, the use of megaphones or voice amplification equipment, the making of any other noise, noisy conduct by any person in or at any street, wharf, dock, pier, or public place …”

The municipality said, of course, Regehr fell under that definition — it was unambiguous and she was making noise with her amplifier.

Regehr in her submissions did not contend that she fell outside the bylaw’s net either.

“I made it clear that I both sing and speak through my amplifier, and I stand for the rights of all expression and intend to fight for my people, people who have been persecuted and prosecuted for public expression through illegal bylaws like these, as a whole,” she said in her response to the ruling.

Still, the judge parsed the bylaw differently and saw complications where the civic burghers and Regehr saw clarity.

“In my view,” Holmes said, “read in the context of the Bylaw as a whole, paragraph 9 refers to the use of equipment to amplify the spoken voice, and not to the use of equipment to amplify the singing voice.”

How could she possibly think that?

“First,” she explained, “the immediate context for the reference to ‘voice amplification equipment’ appears to limit the phrase to the spoken voice. The phrase appears immediately after references to ‘shouting’ and ‘the use of megaphones,’ both of which generally involve the use of the spoken voice, and not the singing voice.”

Second, Justice Holmes added, “singing is a subset of music,” and the bylaw as a whole, indicates “no intent to deem amplified music to be ‘noise’ regardless of its decibel level or its effect on the peace of the neighbourhood.”

The failure to include a specific reference to music, she said, “suggests that the drafters did not deem music to be inherently or necessarily objectionable or disturbing. It appears, rather, that they intended questions concerning whether amplified or other music amounts to ‘noise’ to be determined by reference to the other arms of the definition, which examine its sound level and whether it disturbs the community.”

So, she didn’t have to consider the constitutional arguments, the tickets should simply be torn up.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.

Share

North Vancouver singer-songwriter singing the blues over judge's ruling

Almost Done!

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.

Postmedia wants to improve your reading experience as well as share the best deals and promotions from our advertisers with you. The information below will be used to optimize the content and make ads across the network more relevant to you. You can always change the information you share with us by editing your profile.

By clicking "Create Account", I hearby grant permission to Postmedia to use my account information to create my account.

I also accept and agree to be bound by Postmedia's Terms and Conditions with respect to my use of the Site and I have read and understand Postmedia's Privacy Statement. I consent to the collection, use, maintenance, and disclosure of my information in accordance with the Postmedia's Privacy Policy.